REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS SCCOMM NO. E100077 OF 2025 CROSSFIX LIMITED……..............................................................CLAIMA NT VERSUS ST. BRIDGET HOSPITAL KIAMBU…………....……….…… RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The claimant instituted this claim vide the statement of claim dated 1/9/2025 seeking judgment against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 237,030/= plus costs and interests on the basis that on 17/12/2024, the claimant supplied the respondent with medical supplies but the same were not paid for. 2. The respondent filed the response dated 9/2/2026 and denied any breach of contract as well as the amount claimed. Vide the witness statement dated 9/2/2026, the respondent’s director denied that goods were delivered and denied that there was any written contract with the claimant. 3. The claim proceeded under Section 30 of the Small Claims Act and the respondent filed submissions dated 26/5/2026. 1|Page JUDGMENT SCCE100077 OF 2025
page 1 of 6
The claimant’s were not on record. I have considered those submissions alongside the pleadings and documents on record. The main issue for determination is whether the claimant has proven the claim as against the respondent. 4. The standard of proof in civil matters is on a balance of probabilities. See the court of Appeal in Mumbi M'Nabea v David M.Wachira [2016] eKLR. It is also trite that he who alleges must prove as provided for in Section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act. 5. The burden of proof therefore rested upon the claimant to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of the alleged contract, delivery of the medical supplies, and the outstanding debt claimed. 6. I have carefully examined the documents produced by the claimant in support of the claim. The claimant relied on two agreements allegedly entered into between the parties. However, both agreements are unsigned and there is no evidence demonstrating that they were executed or accepted by the respondent. Consequently, the said documents carry very little evidential value in proving the existence of a binding contractual relationship between the parties. 7. The claimant also produced an excel spreadsheet said to contain records of transactions between the parties. The spreadsheet is a self-generated document and was not supported by any independent records, correspondence, acknowledgments, or certification linking its contents to the 2|Page JUDGMENT SCCE100077 OF 2025
page 2 of 6
respondent. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the court is unable to place substantial reliance on the same. 8. Further, the invoices produced by the claimant do not bear any endorsement, stamp, signature, or acknowledgment by the respondent. Even those invoices indicated as having been paid are not endorsed by the respondent. The invoices, standing alone, are merely demands for payment and do not constitute proof that the goods were indeed delivered and received. 9. Significantly, no delivery notes, acknowledgment forms, or any other documentary evidence of delivery were produced. Given that the respondent specifically denied receiving the goods, it was incumbent upon the claimant to place before the court cogent evidence demonstrating delivery of the supplies in question. 10. The claimant also relied on evidence of certain payments. However, the payments shown on record were made by third parties who are not parties to these proceedings. No explanation was offered as to the relationship between those persons and the respondent, nor was any evidence tendered to show that the payments were made on behalf of the respondent. The court is therefore unable to infer liability on the part of the respondent from those payments. 11. I do further note the absence of correspondence between the parties, such as purchase orders, emails, letters, or messages, that would demonstrate a prior course of dealing or support the claimant’s assertion that the respondent ordered 3|Page JUDGMENT SCCE100077 OF 2025
page 3 of 6
and received the goods. As such, the evidence on record does not support the claim on a balance of probabilities. 12. In the end, I find that the claimant did not sufficiently prove that the respondent ordered, received, and failed to pay for the alleged medical supplies or that the sum of Kshs. 237,030/= is due and owing by the respondent. 13. The upshot is that the claim is found to be unmerited and the same is hereby dismissed. 14. The respondent is awarded costs of the suit assessed at Kshs. 10,000/=. 15. The said costs shall be paid within thirty (30) days from the date hereof. This period shall constitute a stay of execution of the costs order. It is so decreed. DATED and DELIVERED via CTS at NAIROBI this 14TH Day of August 2026 HON. GLADYS. W. KIAMAH RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR 4|Page JUDGMENT SCCE100077 OF 2025
page 4 of 6
5|Page JUDGMENT SCCE100077 OF 2025
page 5 of 6
6|Page JUDGMENT SCCE100077 OF 2025
page 6 of 6